ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 4[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2),\n(3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months.\n(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

Section 263(1) of the Act. Without prejudice to the fact that detailed enquiry and examination with respect to the issue under consideration was undertaken by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment as well as reassessment

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

reassessment order was not justified. Grounds related to provisions for diminution in the value of investments were also discussed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "263", "143(3)", "142(1

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous\ninsofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Id.counsel for the\nassessee drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in\nthe case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1428/2018, order\ndated 01.03.2024 and drew our attention to paras

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "139(1)", "151", "80P", "263", "80AC" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

1) of the Act dated 14.09.2021 while completing reassessment. Hence, it is a full verification case and AO has verified complete facts and after verification took one of view and completed the search assessment. IX. The revenue cannot invoke clause (d) of Explanation 2 of section 263

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

1) of the Act dated 14.09.2021 while completing reassessment. Hence, it is a full verification case and AO has verified complete facts and after verification took one of view and completed the search assessment. IX. The revenue cannot invoke clause (d) of Explanation 2 of section 263

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section 142(1) of the to 18 Oct Act dated 09-Jun-22 and 07-Oct-22 were 22 issued

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1),\n(1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months.\n(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1),\n(1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months.\n(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction on the basis of the law as it stood when the proceedings were initiated. :-24-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 8. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the IT Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue authorities within the State could refuse to follow the jurisdictional High Court

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1428/2018, order dated 01.03.2024 and drew our attention to paras

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 20.04.2021 as under:- 1. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No Issues 1. Source of Loan Advanced The assessee has e-filed its Return of Income in Form-3 on 28.02.2019 declaring total income at Rs.43

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

263 of the Act and interfering with the Assessing Officer’s order passed dated 25.03.2022 by modifying the assessment order with a direction to Assessing Officer to “invoke the applicable penalty provisions u/s.270A(9)(e) of the Act on the entire sum of Rs.7,41,89,422/- for the assessment year 2021-22”. We need to first ascertain whether

SAINULAPTHEEN KATHEEJA UMMA,KANYAKUKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, , NAGERCOIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.264/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25/72, B.O.C. Street, Marthandam Ward – 2, Post, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. Tamil Nadu 629 165. [Pan:Avopk8733F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 05.05.2020 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 662 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

1) to section 263 of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered this issue and observed from Para 22 to 25 read as under: “22. The above explanation makes it clear that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. The Commissioner in the order dated

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act dated 22.02.2023 (para 4 supra); iii. The ld. CIT cannot sit in appeal on the reassessment order 23.03.2023 reversing findings of the AO and impose his own view of decision making process on same material; iv. There is legal presumption as per Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act that AO passed the reassessment order properly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that